I do think the type makes some sense, however in system API, i always felt it is preferable to use more technical terms, from which the meaning can be more completely understood just from the name. And of all the potential terms i can think of, I just feel that Imaginary is one of the least appropriate ones. Just my personal opinion...
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:32:35 +0100, "Mario Ivankovits" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hi Yannick! > > the FileType.IMAGINARY > > - A FOLDER, that has childrens, but no data > > - A FILE, that has no childrens, but has data. > > > I dont understand whats that bad with "imaginary" - a file/foler that is > non existent. Once we cross the bridge where we have to deal with files > that might have children or folders with content we can introduce new > FileTypes. > Or - do not reflect this using file types at all, but introduce > Capabilities on fileObject level too. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
